Among all the lies being perpetuted by gay activists, the waters have been truely muddied for political purposes. Scientific principles have been abandoned for social/political activism (http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf).

For example, sexual re-orientaion is a workable solution through psychotherapy. People that want to change can be helped by the God of Christianity.

Proof Positive from NARTH (http://www.narth.com/docs/criticignores.html):

Of the five formerly gay men on the original board of Exodus International, four have not reverted to homosexuality. Frank Worthen and Ron Dennis continue to lead ex-gay organizations. The other two original board members were rumored to have returned to a gay identity but according to both men, this is not true. Thus, 80% of the original Exodus board members are still ex-gay after 30 years.

What is the importance of these observations? Given the longevity of change that most people involved with Exodus and other ministries report, it is an important contribution to our understanding of sexual orientation and human nature overall to give attention to the whole truth. Although critics for a living such as Mr. Besen may not be able to change their thinking, others may not be so closed minded.


The God of Christianity can do what the liberals are incapable of -- He can change a person's sexual orientation and help them live the life they want to live. Liberals are so ashamed they do not have this power. Well Ha! Ha!

It prooves God is a real, life-changing force. Are there any secular success stories out there for changing sexual orientation? :rolleyes:

As I said before proof-positive: God can change a life where liberals fail to make any difference, and this makes them ashamed.

-----------------------------------------------------

The churches that affrim homosexual relationships are cheating the homosexuals. A personal testimony (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/012/36.50.html):

Cheated by the Affirming Church
Contrary to what some churches teach, it is homosexuality—and not its suppression—that enslaves people like me.
by Anonymous | posted 02/17/2005 09:00 a.m.

I feel cheated. Cheated by those who say that they love me and are trying to help me. Yet, if things were left up to them, I would still be in a prison of my own making—enslaved by homosexuality and without hope.

Like many other Christians, I have struggled for years with same-sex attraction. By God's grace I know freedom from a way of life that still holds too many others captive. Yet many within the so-called affirming church would deny us that freedom. They say homosexuality is God's plan for our lives, even though the Bible clearly says that homosexual behavior is a sin. It is not my intention to prove it; many conservative theologians have already done so. Instead, let me highlight, on a practical level, the negative effects of affirming this sin.

Does God gain some mysterious personal benefit by prohibiting homosexual practice? My exposure to homosexuality convinces me of a far more basic rationale for the biblical prohibition: Homosexuality is bad for me.

-------------------------------------------------------

From My Path to Lesbianism (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/002/36.62.html):

Mary Beth Patton, a psychologist, counselor, and researcher of same-sex attraction who is on the board of Portland Fellowship, an Exodus International-affiliated ministry, so described what happens to women like me: "Women who deal with same-sex attraction often possess a history of dis-identification with their mothers, and therefore with their femininity. This leads to a longing for connection with the feminine that becomes sexualized in adolescence."

Girls disconnected from their mothers often begin to hate their emotions and all the other things that make them women. I don't necessarily mean those things that make us look feminine on the outside, but those internal characteristics that actually make us feminine beings. For example, I was always comfortable wearing dresses, getting my nails done, and wearing lots of jewelry, so I didn't see those as contemptible qualities in my mother. But when I saw her let herself be a victim of my father's verbal assaults, I vowed that I would never be like my mother. I'd never be under the control of a man, never be dependent on a man, never be weak or admit my vulnerability. Psychologists call such feelings of children toward their parents "defensive detachment." In not allowing my mother to influence me, I walled myself off, not just from anything negative she could have instilled in me, but also from anything good she could have imparted to me as a woman.

Of course, misogyny doesn't always lead to lesbianism. In my case it fostered same-sex attraction because it cut me off from men, from women, from God, and even from myself. I hated men. I hated women. I hated myself for being a woman. I had no more value for women than any women-hating man does, and yet no one was more surprised to discover that I, too, was a misogynist. And I've had to confess that sin to God. My detachment from men and women left me walled off from being able to receive anything good from either men or women.

Testimony from another ex-lesbian (http://www.narth.com/docs/okay.html)


Ex-Gay Is Ok
By Linda Wall
The author of this personal testimony lobbies state and federal legislators from an ex-gay point of view. She aspires to a political career in the Virginia State Senate.

Recently I participated in the first Annual Ex-gay Lobby Day on Capitol Hill and it felt great! I am so very thankful that I no longer live as a lesbian. I feel like a bird set free from a cage. It's great to be alive!

My adventure into the gay scene started with fun and excitement. But years later, it had fundamentally changed me--spiraling me downward into a depression that nearly cost me my life.

---------------------------------------------

If you are homosexual and want to change, then don't listen to the lieing liberal soul-destroyers from hell. Don't let these worthless scum-bags trick you. You can get the help you want and need from professionals in the psychiatric community.

Here are some links for you:

NARTH (http://www.narth.com/docs/dean.html)

Exodus International (http://www.exodus-international.org/)

Don't listen to the liars that try to paint them as failures.

Love conquers ALL sins.

One of your "positive proof personal testimonies" was from "Prophet Yahweh," the self-described prophet of the UFO gods that come to visit at his command.

I think we can safely disregard your "sources" out of hand as being bullshit just on the merit of that one. Which one of these was to a study published in a peer-reviewed journal? What longitudinal studies have you reviewed that examine the participants of such "reorientation" programs over time?

What you've done is applied your bigotry to a conclusion you want and looked for data, regardless of the veracity of the source, and applied it to your conclusion. Such bullshit will win in the mind of a bigot every time.

i for one... want to here more... and i applaud those with the strenght of character who for various reasons have abandonned being gay, and living in complete sin...

and if just one of those sources are good, then thats great...

any messed up sources, do not detract from the overall signifigance of the benefit towards peoples lives, when they abandon gay behavior.

-MT

Let's see the source that provides a testable, reproducible and longitudinal study of gay reorientation success. Just one.

Woody,

Moderator comment.

Please don't copy/paste large texts. It violates forum rules. Just paste the links. Please replace these long pastes in this thread with appropriate links within 24 hours otherwise I will delete them.

I know for a fact that the treatment works and you are WRONG, and I feel like I am doing your homework for you.

First, I never implied that you were a homosexual that reoriented. But if its true that's your business (you did say you "know for a fact" and this would seem the only way you could "know"). Second, if there's any "homework" to be done, it would be on the individual that makes the bold claims that you do. You are asserting that the so-called 'reorientation' of homosexuals is a fact. I'm simply asking for you to supply facts. Instead, you've gone to great lengths to provide us with anecdotes from UFO nutters and apologists of various religious delusions.

I have already provided you with some successes and you didn't choose any of the ones that can be verified. Why don't you contact the charter members of Exodus International? It's been in existence now for 30 years, and would not be around if it did not work -- just common sense.

Woody, are you truly this ignorant or are you so wrapped up in these copy/paste operations that you fail to even read your own words? The The Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882 but they've yet to demonstrate any psychic abilities. Fallacious appeals to authority and anecdotes of believers are hardly evidence and only an utter fool would consider them so. Empirical evidence is what is needed in order to support your claims.

So let me do your homework for you:

Emprical Evidence to Support the Claim of 'Reorientation' of Homosexuals

Only a few studies have been conducted that even attempt to provide some empiricism with regard to the notion that gays can be 'reorientated' to heterosexual. Most notably was Spitzer (2003) who used self-reported informants to document at least some "minimal" change over 5 years. Pseudo-therapy groups like NARTH base much of their claims on the work of studies like Spitzer's -and Spitzer is probably the most recently notable effort, but the pseudoscience of reparative therapy probably began with Moberly (1983), who used no study subjects at all! She based her entire book on her own opinions based on the ancient works of luminaries like Freud.

But its the work of Spitzer and others that NARTH would like to cite (and you'd notice if you did your homework instead of relying on me to do it for you) as valid. The primary outcome of Spitzer's study was that, in general, some gay men and women can change their core behaviors and appear content to be heterosexual. The problem is that the very thing that pseudoscience groups like NARTH accuse gays of (pretending to be naturally orientated to a given gender) is what may be happening in their 'reorientations!'

Criticisms of 'Reorientation' and 'Reparative' Therapy of Homosexuals

The only thing that can really be said about NARTH and other nutter groups like them (assuming that even some of their anecdotes are valid) is that they are successful in getting homosexuals (or bisexuals) to favor religious delusions over sexual orientation. Let's face it: people kill for religion; die for religion; and fuck for religion. Why wouldn't they switch genders of sex-partners for religion?

Moreover, as Carlson (2003) noted, “It may be possible that some of [Spitzer’s] research participants might have a more fluid sexual orientation, such as bisexuality” (p. 427). Also, Spitzer’s investigationwas heavily weighted toward highly religious Christian, Caucasian, middle-class individuals, thus ignoring the diversity of individuals who might seek conversion therapy. Overall, the research on conversion therapies is heavily weighted toward a homogeneous, predominantly White, male, Christian population. Shidlo and Schroeder’s (2002) participants were 90% male, 86% Caucasian, and of those who reported religious orientation, 89% Christian. Spitzer’s study was 97% Christian and 95% Caucasian and was predominantly middle-class and middle-aged.

Assumptions Made By Nutter Groups Like NARTH

Religious nutbars that think they can 'cure' homosexuality assume that the causes of homosexuality are known and that homosexuality is unnatural, mentally unhealthy, and sinful and should be changed. Each of these are pseudoscientific when applied to attempts at mental health.

Methodological problems with studies like Spitzer's

(a) results were based on restricted, self-selected samples that represent a socially stigmatized population and thus capitalized on participants’ vested interests to manage selfimpressions, promote their values and lifestyles, overreport successes, and underreport failures;

(b) outcomes are ambiguous because participants’ idiosyncratic conceptualizations of sexual orientation, identity, attraction, and desire were not analyzed and research variables were not well conceptualized;

(c) some studies neglected to use fantasy and arousal to indicate sexual orientation;

(d) some results were based on therapists’ subjective impressions;

(e) comparison or control groups were not used;

(f) long-term, objective outcome results are unavailable; and

(g) dynamic factors, such as time, maturation, and contextual factors, were not analyzed to account for participants’ changes in sexuality and identity development process. Thus, the research base that supports the effectiveness of sexual reorientation is void of systematic, well-established methodologies that are needed to obtain valid scientific results (Wainberg et al., 2003).

In addition, O’Donohue and Plaud (1994) reviewed the evidence for learning and unlearning of sexual arousal responses and concluded that the empirical support for the conditioning or reconditioning of sexual arousal is weak. Barbaree, Bogaert, and Seto (1995) also concluded that substantive changes in the direction of one’s underlying sexual orientation might be difficult or impossible to achieve once established.

Tozer & Hayes (2004) further note that 'reorientation' therapy lacks empirical validation and also suggest that the main focus is to provide derisive messages about same-sex attractions. They found that most who seek "conversion therapy" are do so as an "expression of introjected messages about unacceptable aspects of homosexuality and an extension of one’s being in the early stages of gay or lesbian identity development."

Woody's massive copy/paste and possible violation of Fair Use -but definately a violation of forum rules. A link would have sufficed.

The pseudoscientific extract of Luiz Sérgio Solimeo's book Defending a Higher Law made liberal use of quotes mined from various sources sans context. Moreover, it made equally liberal use of fallacious arguments like "if homosexuality is natural, then why don't humans also engage in cannibalism or filicide? [paraphrasing]" First, it is completely fallacious to assume that because natural behaviors, instincts or acts that are common across taxa that all behaviors, instincts and acts would therefore be common. What a dumbass. Second, both cannibalism and filicide are very much a part of human history and culture. We have the added infection of religious delusion that very often causes these acts in humanity, but they are present. I won't even bother citing references to them since they are common knowledge.

The author asserts: "Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal “homosexuality,” filicide and
cannibalism are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, one cannot speak of them as instincts in animal nature." From here, we can safely ignore the remaining dribble from the author, since it all hinges on this assertion.

The assertion is a mere assumption based on the hope that that which the author (and his similarly biased religious/superstitious readers) deems most dispicable in nature is abherant and therefore not instinctual. I'll ignore the obvious strawman of going down the path of filicide/cannibalism and focus on the central theme: homosexuality.

If either are truly "exceptions" in nature, then they should be rare and not entirely predictable.

Unfortunately for religious nutbars: (and these were from just a few journals lying around)

Hoser (2005) noted that male-male sexual acts were common among Australian death adders.

Van Gossum et al (2005) comment that same-sex mating attempts are common among "many animal groups" and this challenges theories of sexual selection, which predict optimization of reproductive success.

Switzer et al (2004) agree and state that "homosexual pairing between males occurs under natural conditions in a wide variety of taxa, including many insect species." In their study group of Japanese beetles, they discovered that "[m]ale–male pairs were found in 30 of the 65 collection periods, with an average of 0.85 § 0.12 male–male pairs (3.4%) of 25 collected pairs (range, 0–3 pairs). In 3 years of sampling,we found that male Japanese beetles occasionally formed homosexual pairs in the field, with male–male pairs constituting approximately 1–6% of the pairs."

Bertran & Margalida (2003) found male-male mountings to be very common in polyandrous bearded vulture Gypaetus barbatus trios. In 167 copulation attempts recorded between 1991–1992 and 2000–2001, the percentage of male-male mountings recorded were 26.1 and 11.4%, respectively.

And lest you think I'm omitting the data that exists on primates (our own suborder, Anthropoidea, no less), allow me to include O'Neill et al (2004) who state, "examples of same-sex mating behaviors have been widely reported across anthropoid species, and such behaviors have been observed in every family of primates except prosimians."

Solimeo was right to point out those quotes which remind us that applying human behavioral characteristics to other animals is a foolish endeavor. This is obvious. We can't possibly know their psychology since we're unable to ask them with the expectation of receiving an answer. But he was flat out wrong in asserting that homosexual behvaviors do not exist in nature in anything but a common and predictable manner. These behaviors may have their causes in many places: genetics, kin selection, aggression prevention, aggression management, pleasure, politics, etc. The quote-mined sources of Solimeo notwithstanding, there are observations of primate species that appear to fulfill each of these causes at one time or another.

But the fact remains: male-male and female-female sex exists in nature with frequency and regularity and across many taxa.


References:

Religious Brainwashing Portion

Barbaree, H. E., Bogaert, A. F., & Seto, M. C. (1995). Sexual reorientation therapy for pedophiles: Practices and controversies. In L. D. & R. D. McAnulty (Eds.), The psychology of sexual orientation, behavior, and identity: A handbook (pp. 357-383).Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Carlson, H. M. (2003). A methodological critique of Spitzer’s research on reparative therapy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 425-427.

Haldeman, D. C. (2001). Therapeutic antidotes: Helping gay and bisexualmen recover from conversion therapies. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5(3-4), 117-130.

Moberly, Elizabeth (1983) Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. Cambridge: James Clarke Company

O’Donohue, W., & Plaud, J. J. (1994). The conditioning of human sexual arousal. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 321-344.

Shidlo, A., & Schroeder,M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumers’ report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 249-259.

Spitzer, R. L. (2003). Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 subjects reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 32, 403-417.

Tozer, E. E. & Hayes, J. A. (2004). Why do individuals seek conversion therapy? The role of religiosity, internalized homonegativity, and identity development. The Counseling Psychologist, 32(5), 716-740.

Wainberg, M. L., Bux, B., Carballo-Dieguez, A., Dowsett, G.W., Dugan, T., Forstein, M., et al. (2003). Science and the Nuremberg Code: A question of ethics and harm. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 455-457.

Homosexuality in Nature Portion

Hoser, Raymond (2005). Australian death adders in drag. Why being a he/she may help in the race to reproduce. Herptile 30(4), 139-143.

Van Gossum, H. ; De Bruyn, L.; Stoks, R. (2005). Reversible switches between male-male and male-female mating behaviour by male damselflies
Biology Letters 1(3), 268-270.

O'Neill, Ann C.; Fedigan, Linda M.; Ziegler, Toni E. (2004) Ovarian cycle phase and same-sex mating behavior in Japanese macaque females
American Journal of Primatology 63(1), 25-31.

Switzer, Paul V.; Forsythe, Patrick S.; Escajeda, Kara; Kruse, Kipp C.
(2004). Effects of environmental and social conditions on homosexual pairing in the Japanese beetle (Popillia japonica Newman). Journal of Insect Behavior 17(1), 1-16.

Bertran, Joan; Margalida, Antoni (2003). Male-male mountings in polyandrous bearded vultures Gypaetus barbatus: An unusual behaviour in raptors. Journal of Avian Biology, 34(4), 334-338.

SW said,

First, I never implied that you were a homosexual that reoriented. But if its true that's your business (you did say you "know for a fact" and this would seem the only way you could "know"). Second, if there's any "homework" to be done, it would be on the individual that makes the bold claims that you do. You are asserting that the so-called 'reorientation' of homosexuals is a fact. I'm simply asking for you to supply facts. Instead, you've gone to great lengths to provide us with anecdotes from UFO nutters and apologists of various religious delusions.

Go ahead and run to your ignorant paper resources pandered by the pro-gay political community at the expense of the people that want and need help. This is a tragedy that is truly worthy of condemnation -- people are forced into accepting feelings they don't want by the likes of you. You don't believe homosexuals can be helped because you can't help them. It is your own personal failure as a counselor.

But the real fact I'm referrring to is that some (ex-gays) are now in the ministry of Christian churches and they are running support groups for other ex-gays that have re-oriented.

FACT: How do you explain people that are ex-gay and need a support group?

FACT: How do you explain people that are ex-gay, and now in church.

FACT: How do you explain the ex-gay movement?

FACT: How do you explain this lady, that says you are clearly a liar. Talk to her. She is a real person:

http://www.narth.com/docs/Wall.jpg

Linda Wall (http://www.narth.com/docs/okay.html)
Recently I participated in the first Annual Ex-gay Lobby Day on Capitol Hill and it felt great! I am so very thankful that I no longer live as a lesbian. I feel like a bird set free from a cage. It's great to be alive!

She participates in the ex-gay lobby. How do you explain that?

Your white papers are meaningless in the face of real people that have made the change, some of whom I know personally.

You will never, ever, change my mind about it.

Woody's massive copy/paste and possible violation of Fair Use -but definately a violation of forum rules. A link would have sufficed.

You obviously aren't reading the links, and I'm tired of doing your homework for you. There is plenty of evidence that you are clearly WRONG, and I'm tired of arguing with a brainwashed liberal nutter that tows the politically correct line.

Nobody is saying it is easy to re-orient, but that it can be done. The human mind is capable of achieving any goal in a nurturing environment. It is hard to imagine a nurturing environment around yourself.

Woody,

Nobody is saying it is easy to re-orient, but that it can be done. But why change orientation? What's wrong with being Gay?

Woody, I did your homework for you! Your links are garbage (I actually clicked on some of them). None point directly to peer-reviewed or empirically conducted studies.

Your posts are full of homophobic nonsense (and I *did* notice your attempt to poison that well by adding a pseudo-definition for homophobic from the religious nutter site) and bigotry rather than any form of science. Posting a list of anecdotes proves only one fact: that religious delusions can be more profound than one's sexual orientation.

No mystery there. As I said, people kill, die and fuck for religion. Why wouldn't we expect them to give up their sexual identies.

As I also said, the religious nutters that try to "convert" or "reorient" gays do so under premises that have yet to be established: that homosexuality is abherent; unnatural; a choice; etc.

The religious nut-jobs that claim to "reorient" gays are working with pseudoscience. Its as simple as that.

I asked for some simple citations to works that supported their hypothesis and you couldn't even do that -I supplied that work for you! It would seem that it is you that isn't reading your sites, Woody.

Finally, I notice you using my vernacular in further attempts to poison the well, calling me a "brainwashed" and "nutter." Sorry, Woody. The "you-were-first" argument only works in 1st grade. Perhaps through 8th in southern states.

By the way, here's a couple of links so your posts don't get deleted:

http://www.narth.com/menus/positionstatements.html
http://www.narth.com/menus/myths.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/opp.html

(just me doing your homework for you).

SW said:

Your posts are full of homophobic nonsense

Define homophobic.

that religious delusions can be more profound than one's sexual orientation.

I agree, religious meditation is more powerful than one's sexual orientation. Call it delusion if you wish, but it work's just fine.

No mystery there. As I said, people kill, die and fuck for religion. Why wouldn't we expect them to give up their sexual identies.

If they want to change, is that ok with you?

As I also said, the religious nutters that try to "convert" or "reorient" gays do so under premises that have yet to be established: that homosexuality is abherent; unnatural; a choice; etc.

Yes, there are many religious "nutters"that believe that. Then there are people like yourself that believe sexual behavior can not be altered period. Who is doing the greater dis-service, the one that says they have to change or the one that says they can't change? Shouldn't the patient be allowed to make that choice for his/herself?

The religious nut-jobs that claim to "reorient" gays are working with pseudoscience. Its as simple as that.

It wasn't called pseudoscience until the gay movement came along. Before 1973, homosexual men received reparative therapy that didn't give a rat's ass about religion, according to Dr.Spitzer. In 1973 Dr. Spitzer (http://www.ojc.de/dijg/pdf/bulletin_1_2001_spitzer_en.pdf) made the recommendation to remove homosexuality from the APA's list of mental disorders at the request of gay activists. Why don't you read his interview concerning reparative therapy? It should be a real eye-opener for you.

In short a mental disorder is defined as follows: Can the patient function in society, and does the patient want the behavior? If either answer is "no", then it is considered a mental disorder. Society has moved to accept the homosexual, but if a patient doesn't want homosexual feelings, then it is called a mental disorder. A homosexual that's ok with their orientation does not have a mental disorder under this rubic. It's all a matter of the patient's perspective, not mine or yours.

I asked for some simple citations to works that supported their hypothesis and you couldn't even do that -I supplied that work for you! It would seem that it is you that isn't reading your sites, Woody.

It is no longer a hypothesis, Dr. Spitzer has proven that reparative therapy can work at least on some segment of the human homosexual population. If you believe homosexual orientation is immutable for all homosexuals, you are mistaken.

Here is the link on the study he performed. It is unfortunate that ex-gays had to picket the APA before any of them would even consider their cause. A real tragedy of politics before the patient I must say, quite shameful, indeed reprehensible. Fortunately Dr. Spitzer was open-minded enough to consider the patient as he did in 1973.

Spitzer's Technical Paper on Sexual Re-orientation Therapy Effectiveness (http://www.ojc.de/dijg/pdf/bulletin_2_2001_spitzer_en.pdf)


Finally, I notice you using my vernacular in further attempts to poison the well, calling me a "brainwashed" and "nutter." Sorry, Woody. The "you-were-first" argument only works in 1st grade. Perhaps through 8th in southern states.

Actually I was hearing the terminology before you were even born, or perhaps you were in diapers. In the early 70's we called liberals "nuts" and "brainwashed". The vernacular has been in use for a long time, like pre-WWII. About the same amount of time liberals have been on the scene I might add. Check it out in a dictionary. BTW, aren't you in Texas?

So tell me Skinwalker, is it an absurd idea to provide patients with sexual re-orientation therapy ? Are you prepared to make a fool of yourself?

WOODY!! Mate, go easy on your keyboard, that bad boy must be on fire!
A few questions for you:

1. Why do you care if people are homosexual?
2. Why would a homosexual wish to change their sexual orientation?
3. Do you have any homosexual friends or family that want to reorientate?

Thanks in advance for answering my questions. :)

Yeah man, Woody this is some of the most screwed up anti-gay rhetoric that I have heard outside of a Southern Baptist anti-gay rally. How's this for you then-

John 13:34- A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another;
as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

John 3:11- For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we
should love one another.

Peter 2:17- Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

John 4:7- Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one
that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

John 4:20- If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar:
for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he
love God whom he hath not seen?

There ya go Woody, three quotes from your divine book, all preaching brotherley love and acceptance. So, your anti-gay preach-fest went against the word of god. Congrats Woody, technically, you can burn in hell for what you just posted!

WOODY!! Mate, go easy on your keyboard, that bad boy must be on fire!
A few questions for you:

1. Why do you care if people are homosexual?
2. Why would a homosexual wish to change their sexual orientation?
3. Do you have any homosexual friends or family that want to reorientate?

Thanks in advance for answering my questions. :)

1) I believe many of them want and need help. I'll be honest when I say I have a religious opinion on the subject, but I don't have a right to make somebody else's decision for them.

2) According to DR. Spitzer, the primary reason for their wish to change is emotional disatisfaction with same sex relationships, followed by religious beliefs. This becomes especially apparant as they grow older.

3) No I do not, but I have known people that made the change. If you read Dr. Spitzer's work you'll find that many adolescents are confused about their sexual orientation, but typically go heterosexual as time goes on. It's pretty obvious to me that behaviour is age dependent, and behavior can be changed --maybe not so obvious to others though.

1) I believe many of them want and need help. I'll be honest when I say I have a religious opinion on the subject, but I don't have a right to make somebody else's decision for them.

2) According to DR. Spitzer, the primary reason for their wish to change is emotional disatisfaction with same sex relationships, followed by religious beliefs. This becomes especially apparant as they grow older.

3) No I do not, but I have known people that made the change. If you read Dr. Spitzer's work you'll find that many adolescents are confused about their sexual orientation, but typically go heterosexual as time goes on. It's pretty obvious to me that behaviour is age dependent, and behavior can be changed --maybe not so obvious to others though.

Woody. Clear answers, thank you. Now then to the really big question!
Do you honestly believe that all homosexuals will burn in hell when they die?
Thanks again.

GP said:

Yeah man, Woody this is some of the most screwed up anti-gay rhetoric that I have heard outside of a Southern Baptist anti-gay rally.

I never heard of a SB anti-gay rally. Did you make that up? When and where was it held under the auspices of the Soutern Baptist organization? The SB church I used to go to must have boycotted it. :m:

There ya go Woody, three quotes from your divine book, all preaching brotherley love and acceptance. So, your anti-gay preach-fest went against the word of god. Congrats Woody, technically, you can burn in hell for what you just posted!

Perhaps you wish I would burn in hell. I don't feel that way about you though.

Woody. Clear answers, thank you. Now then to the really big question!
Do you honestly believe that all homosexuals will burn in hell when they die?
Thanks again.


I believe all unrepentent sinners will be there, and it's not what I want for them.

No, I never said I wished you'd burn in hell. However Woody, you have yet to argue against the quotes that I posted.

Homophobic: fear of homosexuality; exhibited mostly by religious nutbars who buy into the silly rhetoric of their cult leaders.

Some folks have asked some very good questions that you've failed to answer:

1. Why do you care if people are homosexual?
2. Why would a homosexual wish to change their sexual orientation?
3. Do you have any homosexual friends or family that want to reorientate?

I've asked: where's the empirical data that support the notion that people need reorientation or that it even works? Spitzer's research was flawed (I noted these earlier) but I agree his work wasn't "pseudoscience." It was simply bad science.

The "work" that groups like NARTH claim to do *is* pseudoscience, however, since they base it on false premises and assumptions. Moreover, they use bad science and refuse to acknowledge the lack of empirical data to support their premises and assumptions. In doing so, they wrap their supernatural beliefs in a thin veil of "scientific-sounding" terminology and misquoted research of others.

If gays want to pretend to be heterosexual to fit into their other social groups and cults, I've no problem with that. That's their problem. But when pseudoscientific assholes like the people at NARTH make claims that are unsubstantiated and based on false premises and assumptions, its called fraud.

These religious nutbars are conartists and fraudsters. They're pseudoscience nutters. And they seek only to promote/defend their own silly cult rather than genuinely care about people.

And you, who support them, are either ignorant, stupid, or homophobic. Or a combination of two or all three.

Regardless, your rhetoric is tiring and obviously bigoted.

May God curse all left handed people in their evil lifestyle choice.

Well, I can proudly say that I shut Woody down with my use of quotes from the sermon on the mount! w00t w00t, go brotherly love!

...and those evil people that still chose to eat shellfish in violation of God's law.
...and those evil people that fail to stone to death adulterers.

This whole subject has been in the news recently with the apparent splitting up of the Anglican community over the ordination of gay ministers. And in the middle of this debate, some woman doing "Thought For the Day" on Radio 4 - a five minute chat on some topic of the moment, from a religious point of view - started off her talk by referring to some vile crime when some guy got beaten to death because he was gay. I can't really remember everything she said, but at the end she was basically stating the claim that "God sees everybody as equal, and we all have to stand before His judgement, gay or straight." And I thought, "Erm, no, love - I think it's time you got with the programme and faced up to some facts. To whit: God hates poofs. All this debate going on about whether people who seriously cannot help which gender they happen to find attractive. Is there a compromise we can reach if we accept the Bishop is gay, as long as he isn't "practicing"? So, we basically come up with fact no. 2. Gay or straight, the main problem is God hates penises being put into anuses. Or mouths, I guess. It's fine, the Bishop can live in his loving relationship, but unlike any straight clergyman (and are there really that many of those in the Christian church?) he's not allowed to put his penis whereever he wants.

Anybody who comes back at me with "Hey, it's not about the penis - we hate lesbians too!" is .... well, proving my point, I guess.

Woody, I notice in your first post that apparently "rumours" were that some of these people had in fact reoffended, but they denied it. Thank God every Christian is totally trustworthy! ;)


EDIT: A miracle happened - today was the last day this was still available online, so I'm going to post the transcript. This material is copyright (c) 2006 the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/documents/t20060621.shtml

Thought for the Day, 21 June 2006
Anne Atkins

Hate crime is as hateful as the name suggests. Jody Dobrowski was murdered, not for his wallet nor because he happened upon the wrong place at the wrong time, but because he was gay. A crime of chance or greed is undiscriminating, and anyone might have died in his place. But Mr Dobrowski's death was personal: attacked for his identity, assaulted for who he was, murdered for his very nature. Shockingly, if he had been different he would still be alive.

So under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, those guilty have been jailed for twenty eight years - and not a day too many... though twice as long as they would have received if their reason had been different: crimes prompted by race, religion, disability or sexuality now attract far heavier sentences. An understandable reaction, I realised when I heard of a man in America being dragged behind his car for a mile because he was black.

Suppose, though, his torturers had objected to his hair colour? Or name, or make of car? Would his death have been any less dreadful? Does motive make a murder so much more wicked? Hitler killed for reasons of race, religion, disability and sexuality, and his crimes still - and rightly - revolt us. But he also hated those who helped his targeted victims. Was it worse to kill a Jew than someone who - voluntarily and bravely - helped a Jew escape?

A lawyer in Mr Dobrowski's case is quoted as saying that "we are moving towards a saner society in which everyone's human dignity and personality, whatever his lifestyle, is fully recognised" - a surprising observation when, as one commentator has pointed out, if Mr Dobrowski had been heterosexual, his life would seem to have been valued as only half as precious.

So we no longer have a set punishment for a certain crime then, but a system that seems subjective in response to circumstances. It was recently the 20th anniversary of a case that caused outcry for similar reasons, when the perpetrators of the violent and terrifying Ealing vicarage rape were given lenient sentences because, the judge said, the victim's trauma "had not been so great". This was retribution based on reaction rather than reason: now we have a penalty apparently prompted by political correctness.

It's a far cry from the statue of justice on top the Old Bailey, blindfolded because she shows no partiality towards persons. Very different too from the origin of judgement itself, the justice of God. Whose ruling is so objective that it is the same for sinner and saint equally; who despite His particular love for some yet treats all alike; and who is so scrupulously fair that good and bad - of any race, religion, disability or sexuality - will face the same Judgement... and are offered the same escape from it.


copyright 2006 BBC

SW said:

Homophobic: fear of homosexuality; exhibited mostly by religious nutbars who buy into the silly rhetoric of their cult leaders.

That's your definition and it tells how you feel about it. The definition used by professional therapists is considerably different from yours. perhaps someday when you wish to join their ranks, you might want to look it up. Perhaps it will help you sound professional.

Some folks have asked some very good questions that you've failed to answer:

1. Why do you care if people are homosexual?
2. Why would a homosexual wish to change their sexual orientation?
3. Do you have any homosexual friends or family that want to reorientate?

It sounds like you're going off the deep end. Actually you failed to read my answer, and the very favorable reply from the one that asked it. I can imagine a therapy session with SkinWalker. Perhaps a sign on the wall that says " I'll talk and you'll listen." Perhaps you are capable of a dialogue, who knows?

I've asked: where's the empirical data that support the notion that people need reorientation or that it even works? Spitzer's research was flawed (I noted these earlier) but I agree his work wasn't "pseudoscience." It was simply bad science.

Flawed in what way? The point of his study was to show that it is at least possible to show sexual orientation can be changed through therapy. Is there any doubt of that after sampling 200 ex-gays? Especially the females who seem to be a lot better at it than the males. Is that any surprise? It isn't to me. Of the three lesbians I've known personally two of them worked out fine for sure. I haven't heard from the third, but she managed to go at least bisexual the last I heard from her.

The "work" that groups like NARTH claim to do *is* pseudoscience, however, since they base it on false premises and assumptions. Moreover, they use bad science and refuse to acknowledge the lack of empirical data to support their premises and assumptions. In doing so, they wrap their supernatural beliefs in a thin veil of "scientific-sounding" terminology and misquoted research of others.

The thing I find incredible is a psychiatric clinic that fails to produce any positive benfit to any patient yet maintains a business and has been doing so decades before the gay movement even showed up. How did they get referrals if they didn't help anyone? What a failed business model that would be. Your analogy is useless that compares a therapy clinic to some research facility on a federal grant. Could you imagine a medical or psychiatric practice staying in business that never helped anyone? They would be sued wouldn't they?

Apparantly you don't understand how business works. Business works based on results. A government funded research program works the liberal way -- through tax dollar funding and political gimme. You understand that model better because it supports you. Perhaps that's why you chose it to make the comparison.

Well, I can proudly say that I shut Woody down with my use of quotes from the sermon on the mount! w00t w00t, go brotherly love!

I originally said that a homosexual that wants help should be allowed to receive it, according to his/her wishes. You disagree and quote the bible, therefore, I will not read or respond to anymore of your posts. Goodbye. You go to the phantom zone.

May God curse all left handed people in their evil lifestyle choice.

(great response kenny :D )

May He smite them all, and all right-handed people see how they are blessed of rnot being smitten, for they have chosen to be right-handed!

Give me a break!! Homosexuality occurs in nature... I have a boy dog... and trust me... he likes my sister's boy dog... a bit... too much.

Homosexuality is not a choice, and most homosexuals like being homosexual. If some want to change their orientation, let them, doesnt affect me.

May God curse all left handed people in their evil lifestyle choice.

What about people tht lose their preferred hand-of-choice, and adapt equally well to using the opposite hand?

What about people that want to be right handed out of convenience?


What about people like me: I'm a left-handed bow shooter and a right handed guitar player? If I were born 5,000 years ago in a hunting society, would I be called left-handed or right handed?

Your argument is truly stupid and I've heard it before from other stupid people. Stupid people say stupid things. Hence it is off to sock-puppet troll land for the both of you. You're on my ignore-list. Goodbye. :(

That's your definition and it tells how you feel about it. The definition used by professional therapists is considerably different from yours. perhaps someday when you wish to join their ranks, you might want to look it up. Perhaps it will help you sound professional.

The definition by professional therapists is simply "prejudiced against homosexual people." I expounded upon it because your bigotry is clear as is your intent. If the science of reparative therapy (there's no evidence that it is either) was what you wished to discuss, then you'd have started the thread in the Human Science (http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=69) subforum. Instead, you posted it here, in the Religion subforum, because your bigotry -your homophobia- is religiously grounded. My definition is appropriate and supported by your own actions. QED.

It sounds like you're going off the deep end. Actually you failed to read my answer, and the very favorable reply from the one that asked it.

Indeed I did fail to read your answer. The answer you posted approximately 10 minutes before I posted my own. I probably already had my reply dialog open by time you dropped yours. My apologies for being so careless. But I found your answers to be less than satisfactory. Perhaps there are gays that are dissatisfied with their sexual orientation. I'm sure there are. Spitzer's research suffers from several flaws (which I noted previously). One of them, which I may not have discussed, is that there is research that indicates that gays dissatisfied are so because of the stigma and pressure that exists in their lives against homosexuality. In short, gay-bashing, homophobic bigots who belittle them because of their religious superstitions and hate-filled rhetoric. In Shidlo & Schroeder's sample (2002), they found that of the gays that went through so-called 'reorientation therapy' did so because of homophobic attitudes toward them. Among their sample were individuals who had initially sought therapy for depression and anxiety only to be instructed to attend 'conversion therapy.'

Some participants were motivated to pursue treatment with the hope of saving their heterosexual marriage and keeping their children. Others entered conversion therapy through force and coercion. For example, some students in religious universities were told that noncompliance with the mandated treatment would be followed by academic expulsion or the termination of financial aid. One participant reported the following:

I am being forced to be in therapy [by a large religious university]. I sit there and agree with what he [the therapist] has to say to avoid confrontation. He is pushing me to marry a woman. My goal is basically just to graduate.

Of the 87% of the sample they studied (a full 176 individuals) reported that they failed to 'convert' back to a heterosexual identity. Only 13% perceived themselves as successful. Of that 13% (26 individuals), 6 refused to put a self-label on their sexual identity and 3 of this 6 were celibate!

This is the only study that I know of that bothers to attempt a quantitative look at so-called 'conversion therapy.' Clearly, such 'therapies' are problematic. Not only do psuedoscientific groups like NARTH fail to consider such data or discuss it with their consumers, but they flat out refuse to conduct any meaningful research of their own. Instead, they rely on one of the hallmark indicators of pseudoscience: anecdotal testimony. Useful in selling a product, but useless in measuring any real success.

Shidlo & Schroeder conclude with:We found evidence that many consumers of failed sexual orientation therapies experienced them as harmful. Areas of perceived psychological harm included depression, suicidality, and self-esteem. In the case of aversive conditioning and covert sensitization, harm included intrusive flashback-like negative imagery that was associated with serious long-term sexual dysfunction. Areas of perceived social harm included impairment in intimate and nonintimate relationships. Some religious participants also reported experiencing spiritual harm as a result of religious therapy.

We found that some participants also reported feeling helped. For a minority (4%), conversion therapy provided help in shifting their sexual orientation. Others (9%) found help in HBM techniques and were content with being celibate or else accepted an ongoing struggle to contain their same-sex desire. Participants also reported other therapeutic benefits, including an increased sense of belonging, improved insight, improved self-esteem, improved communication skills, and relief from talking about sexuality for the first time. Surprisingly, some participants who failed to change reported that their failure had been a needed proof, which freed them to embrace their gay/lesbian identity with less guilt.

In one of your answers (#3), you say:If you read Dr. Spitzer's work you'll find that many adolescents are confused about their sexual orientation, but typically go heterosexual as time goes on. It's pretty obvious to me that behaviour is age dependent, and behavior can be changed --maybe not so obvious to others though.

I've read Spitzer's work and much of the work that directly criticizes or compliments it. I'm leafing through his primary contribution to the subject in Archives of Sexual Behavior, printed in October of 2003, and I see no mention of adolescent confusion. Could you point us to another citation perhaps? Obviously there's one I'm missing.

More likely, you're relying on the homework I did for you by finding the citation and assuming he said something about adolescent confusion and hoping that no one else actually has a copy of the journal. And the section on page 411 under the heading "Good Heterosexual Functioning" isn't discussing "confusion" among adolescents in the context you imply. So share with us the correct citation so we can have some complete perspectives. Stop hiding it.. that's pseudoscientific.

Flawed in what way? The point of his study was to show that it is at least possible to show sexual orientation can be changed through therapy. Is there any doubt of that after sampling 200 ex-gays?

Yes. See the work of Shidlo and Schroeder above as well as the criticisms in my earlier post. In the very same issue (October 2003) of Archives of Sexual Behavior in which Spitzer published, there were many sound criticisms of his work, some of which are mentioned in my previous post (which, it seems you didn't bother to read). In addition, Spitzer himself said:Are the participants’ self-reports of change, by-and large, credible or are they biased because of self-deception, exaggeration, or even lying? This critical issue deserves careful examination in light of the participants’ and their spouses’ high motivation to provide data supporting the value of efforts to change sexual orientation.

The only thing Spitzer demonstrated is that, given sufficient motivation, gays can at least pretend to change their sexual orientation. In his methodology, Spitzer reveals that his sample included individuals who self-reported at least a rank of 60 with 0 being completely heterosexual and 100 being completely homosexual.

What!? 60!? So his cut-off for "gay" is someone who thinks they're attracted to the same sex more often than not? Where is the control for the anxiety driven, depressed man or woman that is simply scared of their androgenous thoughts and occasional curiosity about the same sex? Why didn't Spitzer study convergents who were completely homosexual?

The thing I find incredible is a psychiatric clinic that fails to produce any positive benfit to any patient yet maintains a business and has been doing so decades before the gay movement even showed up.

NARTH (if this is the "clinic" you are referring to) is not a psychiatric clinic. It is a religious cult center that does not adequately measure its work or invite oversight from peer review. Moreover, the methodologies they employ are suspect at best, pseudoscientific at worst. They should be shut down by the government, but the religious nutters have their dicks planted in so many politicians asses that to do so would by akin to biting the hand that feeds them via donations.

Pseudoscience clinics like NARTH exist to fleece money off of willing believers (and perhaps government "faith-based initiatives" funding). They're no different that the many new age clinics that do much the same thing with unfullfilled-promises of cures and prevention via snake oil like coral calcium, reflexology and magnetic therapy.

Reference Reminder

Shidlo, A., & Schroeder,M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumers’ report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 249-259.

Spitzer, R. L. (2003). Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 subjects reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 403-417

What about people that want to be right handed out of convenience? I'm a left-handed bow shooter and a right handed guitar player.

Your argument is senseless. Why should God curse me for choosing my left hand to shoot a bow? THat is truly stupid. About the stupidest analogy I've heard. You both go to the igmore list. Goodbye. :(


Maybe they are basing it on scientific information?? :)


http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6773

http://www.isem.univ-montp2.fr/GE/Adaptation/Bibliographie/fauriePRSLB2004.pdf

Your argument is senseless. Why should God curse me for choosing my left hand to shoot a bow? THat is truly stupid. About the stupidest analogy I've heard. You both go to the igmore list. Goodbye. :(

It makes about as much sense as your silly argument that homosexuality is bad because your cult deems it so. Do *I* get to be on your ignore list now? Or do I have to say Jesus Fucking Christ on a Stick again?

It makes about as much sense as your silly argument that homosexuality is bad because your cult deems it so. Do *I* get to be on your ignore list now? Or do I have to say Jesus Fucking Christ on a Stick again?

You are not listening. May I quote myself AGAIN. This is the last time I will do so.

You said:

Some folks have asked some very good questions that you've failed to answer:

1. Why do you care if people are homosexual?
2. Why would a homosexual wish to change their sexual orientation?
3. Do you have any homosexual friends or family that want to reorientate?

wsionynw asked the question, and to my response he said:

Woody. Clear answers, thank you.

SW for some reason you think you speak for him, and you DON"T. Some people didn't ask the question, wsionyw asked the question, and I answered it. Not only did I answer it, I answered it well in his words -- the person that asked me the question. I have no use for a liar that can't even communicate. You are no professional therapist, you're just a plain and simple troll. Your prejoritive lieing accusations are unacceptable by anyone's standards for civil decency.

Point 2:

you said:

If gays want to pretend to be heterosexual to fit into their other social groups and cults, I've no problem with that. That's their problem.

That too is a lie. You have a big problem with it because they are making that choice for themselves, instead of you choosing otherwise.

Do *I* get to be on your ignore list now? Or do I have to say Jesus Fucking Christ on a Stick again?

Do you want to be on my ignore list? If that's the best you can communicate then you will go there.

I thought liberals were all about choice pro-choice to abort fetuses, pro-choice about lifestyle, etc. But your true colors really come through. You aren't about choice at all, you're about CONTROL. You want all you can get. You even want to control this forum. People are offended by your uncaring approach to humanity, and little wonder -- it's because you believe we are no better than animals. Are you not human as well? If so please act like it. Pretend to be even if you aren't.

Maybe they are basing it on scientific information?? :)


http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6773

http://www.isem.univ-montp2.fr/GE/Adaptation/Bibliographie/fauriePRSLB2004.pdf

Good links. By the way, Jimi Hendrix was a leftie. I'd start playing guitar left-handed if I could play like him in the long-run. In some things I am ambidextris and have no preferred hand. I probably ought to switch to right-handedness on a bow.

Woody,

But you didn’t answer my question –

From a religious perspective - why change orientation? What's wrong with being Gay?

Since Woody now has me on ignore (and if he doesn't he should), I'll speak to those that bother to read his bigoted thread.

Like I posted earlier, his motives and intent is clear. This is about his cult doctrine and its bigoted perspective on the fact of homosexuality. There is no evidence that gays choose their sexual orientation and much that says that it is a matter of little choice. If Woody truly had something scientific to discuss about the so-called "reorientation therapy" (aka "conversion therapy," aka "reparative therapy") he would have posted it in the Human Science forum. Instead, he chose the religion forum, because this is where the pseudoscience he's asserting as viable comes from.

Additionally, Woody appears to not understand what I said about not seeing his little answers to the questions the other poster asked. When I clicked reply, Woody's wasn't there. Moreover, I found his answers unsatisfactory regardless of what the other poster thought. It would seem that Woody is satisfied having a fan-base of one in this thread. Good for him.

But Woody shows his utter stupidity by calling me a liar because I've no problem with gays who want to pretend to be heterosexual. What knowledge could Woody possibly have that gives him enough insight into whether or not I actually believe this statement.

I'm tempted to say, "what a moron," but that isn't the case. Woody isn't interested in debating facts surrounding the pseudoscience of "conversion therapy." Instead, he's content to start a thread with his homophobic bigotry in rhetoric form then simply reply with ad hominem remarks and derisions about "liberals" and such. In other words, the dumb ass approach.

I'm more than willing to make use of ad hominem rhetoric, particularly with dumb asses who deserve it, but at least I'm also willing to actually read the debated literature and form an opinion on the facts. Woody has only his hatred for homosexuals which he disguises as a "concern" for the well being of the heterosexual trapped inside. What a bigoted dumb ass.

At least on ignore, I'll be able to counter his pseudoscientific nonsense without having to read past the complete ignorance and utter lack of education that responds to me.

The definition by professional therapists is simply "prejudiced against homosexual people." I expounded upon it because your bigotry is clear as is your intent. If the science of reparative therapy (there's no evidence that it is either) was what you wished to discuss, then you'd have started the thread in the Human Science (http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=69) subforum. Instead, you posted it here, in the Religion subforum, because your bigotry -your homophobia- is religiously grounded. My definition is appropriate and supported by your own actions. QED.

QED there you go again, on another CONTROL issue, and I'm really tiring of this.

Also, the definition by professional therapists is not what you claim. It is a rare but treatable condition for people that are struggling with their own homosexual feelings. You are no professional therapist. Whatta joke.

Indeed I did fail to read your answer. The answer you posted approximately 10 minutes before I posted my own. I probably already had my reply dialog open by time you dropped yours. My apologies for being so careless. But I found your answers to be less than satisfactory. Perhaps there are gays that are dissatisfied with their sexual orientation. I'm sure there are. Spitzer's research suffers from several flaws (which I noted previously). One of them, which I may not have discussed, is that there is research that indicates that gays dissatisfied are so because of the stigma and pressure that exists in their lives against homosexuality. In short, gay-bashing, homophobic bigots who belittle them because of their religious superstitions and hate-filled rhetoric. In Shidlo & Schroeder's sample (2002), they found that of the gays that went through so-called 'reorientation therapy' did so because of homophobic attitudes toward them. Among their sample were individuals who had initially sought therapy for depression and anxiety only to be instructed to attend 'conversion therapy.'

SW, you totally ignore the number one reason cited in the study for the re-orientation: They are emotionally dissatisfied with same-sex relationships because they were hurt in them. These patients view opposite sex relationships as more fulfilling. If you read some of the testimonials I supplied, you will understand that some of the reasons a person is homosexual have nothing to do with sex at all. I'm not going to re-quote it if you aren't going to read it.

Of the 87% of the sample they studied (a full 176 individuals) reported that they failed to 'convert' back to a heterosexual identity. Only 13% perceived themselves as successful. Of that 13% (26 individuals), 6 refused to put a self-label on their sexual identity and 3 of this 6 were celibate!

It's really a question of "what's the criteria for a success?" The criteria in the study is significantly reduced homosexual drive combined with enhanced heterosexual drive. Few people lie on the 100% hetero or homo profile under existing measures.

Developing the appropriate criteria is indeed difficult because the criteria for "homosexual" hasn't been clearly defined according to the researchers I've read. Is it the person, or is it the behavior they exhibit? What kind of behavior? How frequent? Under what conditions? For how long? These questions muddy the waters for any kind of reasonable approach to research, and they need to be clarified.

This is the only study that I know of that bothers to attempt a quantitative look at so-called 'conversion therapy.' Clearly, such 'therapies' are problematic. Not only do psuedoscientific groups like NARTH fail to consider such data or discuss it with their consumers, but they flat out refuse to conduct any meaningful research of their own. Instead, they rely on one of the hallmark indicators of pseudoscience: anecdotal testimony. Useful in selling a product, but useless in measuring any real success.

They have done an additional study that agrees with Spitzer's. I don't feel like finding it right now.

Shidlo & Schroeder conclude with:

In one of your answers (#3), you say:

I've read Spitzer's work and much of the work that directly criticizes or compliments it. I'm leafing through his primary contribution to the subject in Archives of Sexual Behavior, printed in October of 2003, and I see no mention of adolescent confusion. Could you point us to another citation perhaps? Obviously there's one I'm missing.

More likely, you're relying on the homework I did for you by finding the citation and assuming he said something about adolescent confusion and hoping that no one else actually has a copy of the journal. And the section on page 411 under the heading "Good Heterosexual Functioning" isn't discussing "confusion" among adolescents in the context you imply. So share with us the correct citation so we can have some complete perspectives. Stop hiding it.. that's pseudoscientific.



Yes. See the work of Shidlo and Schroeder above as well as the criticisms in my earlier post. In the very same issue (October 2003) of Archives of Sexual Behavior in which Spitzer published, there were many sound criticisms of his work, some of which are mentioned in my previous post (which, it seems you didn't bother to read). In addition, Spitzer himself said:

The only thing Spitzer demonstrated is that, given sufficient motivation, gays can at least pretend to change their sexual orientation. In his methodology, Spitzer reveals that his sample included individuals who self-reported at least a rank of 60 with 0 being completely heterosexual and 100 being completely homosexual.

What!? 60!? So his cut-off for "gay" is someone who thinks they're attracted to the same sex more often than not? Where is the control for the anxiety driven, depressed man or woman that is simply scared of their androgenous thoughts and occasional curiosity about the same sex? Why didn't Spitzer study convergents who were completely homosexual?

Yeah, Spitzer tried to be scientific about it. He made the point that the conventional measures are inadequate for determining homosexuality in this type of a study. In his presentation he requested that the psychiatric community come up with a better system than what's currently available. Are there any takers out there in the APA, or do they just continue to hide behind their ivory tower? As Spitzer himself said, he didn't even know an ex-gay community existed until he was confronted at an APA convention, and then asked to do the research.

SW, this is where I think we depart. It appears that you wish to sweep ex-gay people under the rug and forget about them because they are not politically expedient for you. I'm getting a strong impression of this. Do you wish pain and suffering on them so you can be "politically right"? If so, then our "discussion" is over.

NARTH (if this is the "clinic" you are referring to) is not a psychiatric clinic. It is a religious cult center that does not adequately measure its work or invite oversight from peer review. Moreover, the methodologies they employ are suspect at best, pseudoscientific at worst. They should be shut down by the government, but the religious nutters have their dicks planted in so many politicians asses that to do so would by akin to biting the hand that feeds them via donations.

And what about the psychiatrists (before 1970) that were applying reparative therapy before NARTH and the gay movement appeared? If it didn't help the patient, then what was the point? Where was a political pay-off back then? I hear the gay movement is really strong in the polical pay-off department, and even the APA leans that way with their money.

Oh, and there you go again, "they should be shut down by the government" because you can't control it. As Spitzer's study indicates, the patient's themselves said they were happier as a result of the therapy. Do you have something against their happiness? You probably wish and hope they were miserable to help your cause, you see. That's the impression I'm getting from you.

Pseudoscience clinics like NARTH exist to fleece money off of willing believers (and perhaps government "faith-based initiatives" funding). They're no different that the many new age clinics that do much the same thing with unfullfilled-promises of cures and prevention via snake oil like coral calcium, reflexology and magnetic therapy.

Reference Reminder

Shidlo, A., & Schroeder,M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumers’ report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 249-259.

Spitzer, R. L. (2003). Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 subjects reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 403-417

Yeah I figured the snake-oil was coming. To that I ask you this -- how do you define success? In business, success is defined as a customer that is satisfied with your product or service. In a therapy business model the patient is a customer, and the therapy is a service. If the customer is happy with the result, then the business model works. I don't think it is possible to have a placebo therapy. How would that even work? Do you fool the customer into thinking they are happier? Isn't that something they know for themselves? They don't do the therapy in a day.

It takes about 2 years to see a visible change, and 5 years to complete the program. It doesn't work for everyone, even though they are extremely motivated. Some complain that it worked, but not to the extent they had hoped for. The risks are explained up-front. Some relapse into old behavior. The ex-gay support groups compare it to Alchoholics Anonymous. If someone slips, and this is expected to happen in many cases, then they are received in an open and supportive environment with others that are dealing with the same issues. Even the leader can fall, but they are given another chance.

It's a struggle of mind over matter. What's in control, the mind or the body? Christians believe the mind is greater than the body, and that, as such, it outlives the body even when the body rots. They also believe when a body controls the mind (as in the case on non-Christians) it rots with the body after death. Non-believers have little choice but to let their bodies be in control. As such, I can understand your frustration and disbelief in reparative therapy. You believe the human mind is too weak to make the change.

As a Christian, I can relate to the struggle the ex-gays are going through. You see, every person that becomes a Christian must re-identify themselves in the sex department. This is not easy, even for a person like myself that has opposite sex attraction. I was celibate for ten years before I married. Without marriage I would have remained celibate. There is no garantee that a marriage is going to work, and if sex is the only reason for the marriage then it will not work.

How is this a cure for homosexuality? I wasnt aware that homosexuality was a sickness... reminds me of x-men series...

Your argument is truly stupid and I've heard it before from other stupid people. Stupid people say stupid things. Hence it is off to sock-puppet troll land for the both of you. You're on my ignore-list. Goodbye.

Looks like I touched a nerve :D

Although to me it looks like God hating left handed people is as realistic as God hating gays... Sorry, 'fags' as your American bible belt nutter calls them.

Isn't it more likely that God does not hate anything, but humans hate things, therefor they claim that God hates the same things they do?

You might as well put me on ignore, Woody, as you never even give direct answers to any of my questions. Thanks for doing me a favour. Goodbye.

I still don't see a rationale for why Christians have a problem with homosexuality. The bible doesn't explain this and the references to homosexuality are dubious. Leviticus is the clearest but then in the same context if you eat shllfish you should be put to death or if you wear clothes made of mixed fabrics you should be put to death, etc. So Levitus must be ignored on the grounds of just sheer silliness.

And the myth makers didn't have the aleged JC mention the issue at all.

So why is this subject such an issue for some Christians?

SG said:

...and those evil people that still chose to eat shellfish in violation of God's law.

The God of the New Testament says:

On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

I like pork barbecue myself. :D


SG said:
...and those evil people that fail to stone to death adulterers.

How about the adulterous woman that was brought before our loving savior Jesus Christ:

http://209.197.66.175/kjvimages/john8-7.jpg

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

I always wondered why those jewish pharisees didn't bring the man too. After all the woman was "caught in the very act of adultery." Doesn't that imply that a man was involved? They must have been real cowards.

----------------------------------------------------------------

SG, you gotta be careful how you use a bible, and just pull things out of context. For example:

"And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself." Mat 27:5

"Go, and do thou likewise." Luke 10:37

-----------------------------------------------------------------

BTW there is a sex-reorientation therapy especially for jewish people . It is called JONAH (http://www.jonahweb.org/).

Jonah ex-gay member's testimony (http://www.pfox.org/asp/newsman/anmviewer.asp?a=143&print=yes)

Here is a support group for parents of ex-gays called PFOX (http://www.pfox.org/).

Don't ex-gays have rights too? Look who is calling the kettle black:

Heterophobic discrimination (http://www.pfox.org/asp/newsman/templates/newstemplate.asp?articleid=274&zoneid=2)

Many gays are offended about this billboard:

http://www.pfox.org/images/PFOX_03.jpg

Talk about discrimination. Geeez.

Excerpt from PFOX (http://www.pfox.org/asp/newsman/templates/newstemplate.asp?articleid=273&zoneid=2):

ORLANDO, Fla., June 5 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Representatives from the world's largest outreach to those affected by unwanted homosexuality will join other pro-family organizations as President Bush endorses a federal amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman in a White House ceremony today. As the Senate plans to vote on the amendment this week, Exodus International plans to voice their concerns on Capitol Hill and says this vote is critical in the fight to preserve the institution of natural marriage.

" The lives of thousands of former homosexuals, like me, verify that homosexuality is not an immutable trait, therefore marriage is not a civil right to be casually granted to any group who demands it. Nor is it a relational right of passage to be awarded to those demonstrating a committed, emotional bond," said Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International. "Ultimately, this debate is about nothing less than the preservation of future generations.

Yep, the political stakes are high. No wonder Skin Walker sheds his snake skin about this issue. It's all about political control and mandated public brainwashing with lies and distortions from the left.

from ex-gay speaker Greg Quinlan (http://www.pfox.org/asp/newsman/templates/newstemplate.asp?articleid=272&zoneid=2):


"There is no biological evidence, not one repeatable study, not a
single genetic test that gives any validity to homosexual behavior as
a "born" trait. No one is born Gay, no one! Homosexuality is an
emotional disorder, a pathology that can be and has been effectively
changed when a person is highly motivated."

A woman once challenged him: "If we find a gay gene, then you will
have to accept it."

"No, I won't," he countered. "Last week I heard they discovered a
gene that causes hereditary breast cancer. You think that if there is
a gay gene, homosexuals should embrace their homosexuality.

Then she should accept her cancer, and embrace it. NO! That's
nonsense. If diabetes has a gene, we seek to cure it. If there is a
gay gene, let's work to cure it."

"Remember Scripture, 'Such were some of you.' It is a changeable
behavior."

Michael Reagan's (http://www.pfox.org/asp/newsman/templates/newstemplate.asp?articleid=271&zoneid=2) confession:

That’s why today I can honestly say on my show, “I admit it; I am homophobic. If I wasn’t homophobic before, I am today. I have a great fear of a homosexual community teaching my grandchildren that it’s OK to be gay even if you don’t think you’re born that way.”

Cris said:

I still don't see a rationale for why Christians have a problem with homosexuality.

You quote the OT which Jesus changed.

IN the NT the apostle Paul said, Rom 1:27

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

But that is not the point made in this thread. The point of this thread is as follows: shouldn't a group of society be respected and supported for their effort to change a behavior that they do not want regardless of their reasons which include their own emotional needs? Shouldn't they be allowed to make that choice for themsleves, instead of liberal nuts telling them they don't have that right and denying they even exist to start with?

The liberal left is cruel and unusual in this regard because of selfish political motivation. Ex-gays stand in the way of their agenda which goes far beyond civil rights for all people. Why can't they accept that some people aren't happy being "gay" and then help them? For an ex-gay person the word "gay" is an oxymoron. Even the english language has been changed to say: well if you're homosexual or "gay" you're automatically "happy" -- lies, lies, lies.

Interesting article:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg19125584.900

Interesting article:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg19125584.900

Hello Snakelord,

Yes, I've read about studies regarding older brothers. The waters remain muddied on that subject because of the criteria for determining what a homosexual is, and both sides of the debate agree they are inconclusive.

Again, what is the definition of "homosexual", and what is the definition of "change" in a therapy they choose for themselves?

what is the definition of "homosexual"

sexually attracted to members of your own sex.

Now let's be honest here Woody, according to you, everyone is seemingly having a hard time even knowing what homosexual means, and yet the minute "prophet yahweh" tells you he was once gay but now abstains from sex, you claim it proof positive of the existence of your specific space being. It's ludicrous.

I really don't need to say much because SW went to all the effort back on page 1, and you - dishonest, rude individual that you are - just started flinging insults at him. Ah well, such is life.

Careful SnakeLord, or he will put you on ignore :D

Aye, then I'll have no religious fundies left to talk to. Whatever will I do? :D

sexually attracted to members of your own sex.

So the definition of homosexual is that simple is it?

So, SL tell me where you draw the line on the Kinsey Scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale):

The scale is as follows:

Rating Description
0 Exclusively heterosexual
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual


Examples:
1) Under your definition a 1 is a homosexual. A bi-sexual therefore is homosexual.

2) It's not uncommon for some kids to have some homosexual experiences; then after they mature they aren't attracted anymore. Under Spitzer's analysys there was a sizable percentage of 12 year-olds that weren't sure about their sexual orientation. Under your definition, they are all homosexual because at some time in their life they were attracted to the same sex, and it's all genetic, therefore they are a homosexual by definition even though they aren't attracted now.

3) Then there are prisoners that would really prefer the opposite sex, but it isn't available, so they have sex with each other. They, by definition, are homosexual aren't they, though given the opportunity they would prefer the opposite sex? They are exclusively homosexual, because they only have sex with other men. Anyone that's been in prison can tell you it's quite common.

4) I remember this guy I used to work with a long time ago that liked to watch heterosexual porno flicks. He was married and had kids. While he was watching this guy came up and offered him a blow-job. He enjoyed the experience and even bragged about it. He said he'd like to do it again. Was he being homosexual?

5) If some guy likes getting blow-jobs regardless of whether it's a man or a woman doing it, is he a homosexual? Who is gay, the sucker, or both of them?

6) Then there is the case of the drag queen.The guy I mentioned in example #4 picked up a drag queen, and went through the make-out routine, unaware that it was a male. When he took the drag queen to his hotel room he found out otherwise and decided not to go through with it. He was attracted to a man disguised as a woman, hence he found extremely feminine men sexually attractive. Under your rubric, he was homosexual wasn't he?

7) I remember in boarding school, a faculty member was gay, and he'd invite teenaged boys in his apartment and show them playboy magazines to get them sexually aroused. Then he would finish it with oral sex. Were the teenage boys homosexual?

Now let's be honest here Woody, according to you, everyone is seemingly having a hard time even knowing what homosexual means, and yet the minute "prophet yahweh" tells you he was once gay but now abstains from sex, you claim it proof positive of the existence of your specific space being. It's ludicrous.

OK, since everyone is making such a BIG FUSS about prophet yahweh, I'll just go and delete it RIGHT NOW. Big deal. :rolleyes:

Now you all have nothing else to say about that link. It's irrelevant anyway, just like your argument. That's how denial works -- pick the weakest point and write off the rest. Quite scientific of you all. Now how about the other dozens of links that have been provided? Will you deny that an ex-gay movement even exists? This should be quite ludicrous on your part.

I really don't need to say much because SW went to all the effort back on page 1, and you - dishonest, rude individual that you are - just started flinging insults at him. Ah well, such is life.

Well if he can't take it then he shouldn't dish it out, now should he? That's how I see it. Besides that he's your tag-team partner, so naturally you only see things his way.

Well if he can't take it then he shouldn't dish it out, now should he? That's how I see it.

Strange thing to say this... coming from Woody who puts people on ignore for disagreeing with him :D

So woody - what criteria does Christianity use so that it can condemn it?

So woody - what criteria does Christianity use so that it can condemn it?

The bible.

BTW, I saw your red-letter note to delete content, have I deleted enough? I can cut it back some more if you want me to. If you want to bar my membership to sciforums, then that's ok with me to. ;)

1) Under your definition a 1 is a homosexual. A bi-sexual therefore is homosexual.

Hate to tell you, but it wasn't my definition.

homo sexual = man sexual, (sexually attracted to members of the same sex).

2) It's not uncommon for some kids to have some homosexual experiences; then after they mature they aren't attracted anymore.

Most certainly. All the changes in the body confuse many youngsters.

Under your definition, they are all homosexual because at some time in their life they were attracted to the same sex, and it's all genetic

Under the definition, which certainly wasn't of my making, there is no mention whatsoever of genetics, nor was there any mention that once homosexual always homosexual.

therefore they are a homosexual by definition even though they aren't attracted now.

Well clearly not. Not attracted to members of the same sex = not homosexual. Duh.

3) Then there are prisoners that would really prefer the opposite sex, but it isn't available, so they have sex with each other. They, by definition, are homosexual aren't they

Yes and no. There are certainly those that are "attracted to members of the same sex" - and thus homosexual, and those that prove their superiority and dominance by sticking it to another man. Dogs do it all the time, (very often confusing owners that end up thinking they're gay). They're not gay, they're just showing their authority.

4) I remember this guy I used to work with a long time ago that liked to watch heterosexual porno flicks. He was married and had kids. While he was watching this guy came up and offered him a blow-job. He enjoyed the experience and even bragged about it. He said he'd like to do it again. Was he being homosexual?

It comes as no surprise to me to realise why you're as fucked up as you are. Every subject, every issue you tell us all a story about some guy you were friends with that got a blow job, or some gay guy at your boarding school that fucked all the other guys, or your grandma saying she never gave a blow job or some other thing that no normal sane person would even consider talking about and most likely would never even experience.

To answer your question, yes - if he was sexually attracted to that person of the same sex. If not, then no.. but I have yet to meet a heterosexual that would accept a blow job from another man. Do take note Woody that having a wife and kids does not specifically make you a heterosexual. Gay people can often try and take on a 'life of normality' generally from fear of retribution from people such as yourself. As for 'heterosexual porn flicks', it's well worth noting that they will contain dicks in them, and this man might well be getting turned on by the dicks and not the fanny.

5) If some guy likes getting blow-jobs regardless of whether it's a man or a woman doing it, is he a homosexual? Who is gay, the sucker, or both of them?

If they are sexually attracted to members of the same sex then yes.. they're gay. It doesn't matter who sucks and who takes, (unless you're Greek).

6) Then there is the case of the drag queen.The guy I mentioned in example #4 picked up a drag queen, and went through the make-out routine, unaware that it was a male. When he took the drag queen to his hotel room he found out otherwise and decided not to go through with it. He was attracted to a man disguised as a woman, hence he found extremely feminine men sexually attractive. Under your rubric, he was homosexual wasn't he?

If he thought the person in question was a woman? There are some very convincing shemales out there and so he would not be really at fault.

7) I remember in boarding school, a faculty member was gay, and he'd invite teenaged boys in his apartment and show them playboy magazines to get them sexually aroused. Then he would finish it with oral sex. Were the teenage boys homosexual?

Was it choice or not? Were the boys sexually attracted to this person of the same sex? These are important questions Woody.

----

Now you all have nothing else to say about that link. It's irrelevant anyway, just like your argument.

If prophet yahweh is irrelevant, why did you include his crap as "proof positive" of the existence of your god?

That's how denial works -- pick the weakest point and write off the rest. Quite scientific of you all.

I'm sorry, if you think "science" is going to sit idly by and accept the word of prophet yahweh, then you don't know what science is.

Will you deny that an ex-gay movement even exists? This should be quite ludicrous on your part.

But here is where SW's statements and data come into play. Such as:

(a) results were based on restricted, self-selected samples that represent a socially stigmatized population and thus capitalized on participants’ vested interests to manage selfimpressions, promote their values and lifestyles, overreport successes, and underreport failures;

(b) outcomes are ambiguous because participants’ idiosyncratic conceptualizations of sexual orientation, identity, attraction, and desire were not analyzed and research variables were not well conceptualized;

(c) some studies neglected to use fantasy and arousal to indicate sexual orientation;

(d) some results were based on therapists’ subjective impressions;

(e) comparison or control groups were not used;

(f) long-term, objective outcome results are unavailable; and

(g) dynamic factors, such as time, maturation, and contextual factors, were not analyzed to account for participants’ changes in sexuality and identity development process. Thus, the research base that supports the effectiveness of sexual reorientation is void of systematic, well-established methodologies that are needed to obtain valid scientific results (Wainberg et al., 2003).

Of the 87% of the sample they studied (a full 176 individuals) reported that they failed to 'convert' back to a heterosexual identity. Only 13% perceived themselves as successful. Of that 13% (26 individuals), 6 refused to put a self-label on their sexual identity and 3 of this 6 were celibate!


And so on. Take into account that SW took the time and effort to provide proper sources to back up what he had said. All you have provided is the word of prophet yahweh. That is totally scientific, as you must clearly understand and respect given your earlier statements concerning science? What you have done is completely neglected science, (something you seemingly view with distaste), to try and back up an assertion that you're seemingly having a hard time doing even without the help of science.

Well if he can't take it then he shouldn't dish it out, now should he?

I don't get what you're trying to say. SW killed you. That is the fact in this matter.

Besides that he's your tag-team partner, so naturally you only see things his way.

Utter nonsense. What you, (as a supposed understander of science), must respect is that he has the upper hand in this case simply because he provided sources better than prophet yahweh - a completely scientific thing for him to do. You on the other hand cursed everyone for being "unscientific", which shows outright your lack of understanding of what science is, all because good old prophet yahweh said nothing of value.

Needless to say, SW doesn't need a tag team partner.

But here is where SW's statements and data come into play. Such as:

(a) results were based on restricted, self-selected samples that represent a socially stigmatized population and thus capitalized on participants’ vested interests to manage selfimpressions, promote their values and lifestyles, overreport successes, and underreport failures;

False: As Spitzer stated at the very beginning of his study, he was testing the hypothesis that homosexuality can not be changed. All it takes is one subject that violates the hypotheis, and it has been disproved. Sampling is not unimportant when you are trying to prove something exists. Mutually exclusive events are very logically proven this way: Hypothesis: once homosexual, never heterosexual. One data point otherwise disproves the hypothesis. Quite logical. Pure and simple logic when you remove political emotions from the equation.

(b) outcomes are ambiguous because participants’ idiosyncratic conceptualizations of sexual orientation, identity, attraction, and desire were not analyzed and research variables were not well conceptualized;

THe problem lies in definitions: What is a male attraction and what is a female attraction? Are they based on sterotypes of what a male and a female are supposed to be. Example: a male is attracted to drag queens. Example: Is a transgendered person a male or a female? Are they homosexual after they are transgendered?

(c) some studies neglected to use fantasy and arousal to indicate sexual orientation;

Not Spizer's study. This area was examined very closely and the results are quite convincing.

(d) some results were based on therapists’ subjective impressions;

Not Spitzer's. The questions were selected before hand and the multiple choice answers catalogued before hand.

(e) comparison or control groups were not used;

As explained before by Spitzer himself, this is a totally unneeded and irrelevant step. It would be relevant if you were trying to prove the percentage effectiveness of reparative therapy, but that was not the purpose of his study.

(f) long-term, objective outcome results are unavailable; and

As Spitzer said in his study, no-one was included if they had less than 5 years since the treatment. So is ten to twenty years long enough for you?

(g) dynamic factors, such as time, maturation, and contextual factors, were not analyzed to account for participants’ changes in sexuality and identity development process. Thus, the research base that supports the effectiveness of sexual reorientation is void of systematic, well-established methodologies that are needed to obtain valid scientific results (Wainberg et al., 2003). ”

So in other words the homosexual community even disagrees on the immutability of homosexual orientation, "gay gene" predestination, whatever.

Hence Spitzer's study wasn't even needed to start with.

False: As Spitzer stated at the very beginning of his study, he was testing the hypothesis that homosexuality can not be changed.

87% reported a failure, 9% were celibate or refused to put a label on their sexual identity and the who is to say, (from the information gathered), that the remaining 17 were actually homosexual? As you yourself have stated, many teenagers etc go through 'strange moments' where body chemicals are in chaos.

Where is the data to show that the subjects had been homosexual, (sexually attracted to members of the same sex), for years if not decades and no longer had sexual attraction to members of the same sex? Perhaps they could control those urges to stop them from engaging in sexual activity with members of the same sex, but where is the data to show they just no longer had any sexual feelings towards members of the same sex?

As SW pointed out, even Spitzer didn't seem to know:

"Are the participants’ self-reports of change, by-and large, credible or are they biased because of self-deception, exaggeration, or even lying?"

Hypothesis: once homosexual, never heterosexual.

You yourself knows this is false. There are many teenagers that go through contradicting feelings during and after times of puberty.

THe problem lies in definitions: What is a male attraction and what is a female attraction? Are they based on sterotypes of what a male and a female are supposed to be. Example: a male is attracted to drag queens.

You're reaching in the hope that it will delay your inevitable failure. However, I will agree for now and say that unfortunately such data was not provided. How did Spitzer determine who was or wasn't actually really homosexual?

As SW points out:

"What!? 60!? So his cut-off for "gay" is someone who thinks they're attracted to the same sex more often than not? Where is the control for the anxiety driven, depressed man or woman that is simply scared of their androgenous thoughts and occasional curiosity about the same sex? Why didn't Spitzer study convergents who were completely homosexual?"

It seems anyone would do that stated they had at some time looked upon a member of the same sex with sexual attraction. As you might be aware by now, that includes a lot of teenagers, (current statistics suggest 60%). It seems he has picked a majority that confess to being just over half gay. What is half gay anyway?

As explained before by Spitzer himself, this is a totally unneeded and irrelevant step.

I'm sorry, you take a bunch of "half gays" and then when these people claim they're not so "half" anymore you call it a success? Please.

As Spitzer said in his study, no-one was included if they had less than 5 years since the treatment. So is ten to twenty years long enough for you?

So 5 years down the line you're at home with a woman and someone comes and asks you if you're still half gay? Interesting.

So in other words the homosexual community even disagrees on the immutability of homosexual orientation, "gay gene" predestination, whatever.

Perhaps not the homosexual community, but the bunch of half gays that Spitzer decided to 'test'.

The problem with Woody's interpretation of the results of Spitzer, which I've seen no evidence that he's actually read, is that he's willing to accept the anecdotal testimony recorded, perhaps even concocted, by the pseudoscience organizations that purport to 'convert' gays 'back to heterosexual' (as if they were heterosexual to begin with).

Woody, would rather ignore empiricism and methods used to obtain data and skip scientific methodology altogether, since it's easier for him to find data if he first forms a conclusion and then only looks at that data, however flawed, which supports the conclusion.

With regard to his inclusion of "prophet yahweh," this is his major flaw: Woody is willing to accept anyone's testimony that supports his conclusion without regard to their credibility or genuineness. He's now willing to toss out the prophet yahweh testimony since this "prophet's" credibility has been seriously questioned to the point that even Woody cannot accept. The problem is that the same holds for each and every one of his "testimonies." They do not become evidence. They are believers (p. yahweh just believes a little too much for Woody... i.e. UFOs & aliens) supporting their beliefs, and dismissed out of hand.

That leaves Woody only with the study he probably hasn't even read: Spitzer. And Spitzer did, indeed, discover that gays can at least appear to change sexual orientation. Sptizer's study was not longitudinal nor did it thoroughly explore the notion that motivations for wanting change may override their true sexual identity.

If a right-handed person has his hand amputated, he's still right-handed; but he learns to function with his left out of necessity. The same, according to Spitzer's research is true for gays that need to "become" heterosexual. If they wish to remain a part of their social groups and accepted by their cults or families, they learn to act as a heterosexual. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE in the Spitzer study that shows these individuals actually change their orientation. Sptizer, himself, reveals that 75% of his "subjects" were referred by religious cult organizations (p. 406) and their data was self-reported! In other words, the study was biased from the start! Spitzer began with noble intentions, but ended up with a worthless study after all!

So, here's what the reader of this thread is left with:

Woody, a homophobic bigot who has an overwhelming desire to deride homosexuality in public forum using pseudoscience (NARTH et al) and flawed science (Spitzer).

The real topic of this thread is Why does Woody Hate gays?

Does he hope Spitzer was right? That gays can change? Did Woody have a dream about playing the skin flute one night and has a fear that he'll start redecorating the house?

SL said:

87% reported a failure

A failure to what? In whose words? Can you show me Spitzer's quote to that effect?

Spitzer's Report, p9 (http://www.ojc.de/dijg/pdf/bulletin_2_2001_spitzer_en.pdf):

Contrary to conventional wisdom, some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation and acheive good heterosexual funtioning.

"Complete change - which is generally considered an unrealistic goal in psychotherapy - is uncommon, particularly in male subjects.

SL, if you are the therapist you claim to be, it seems you would realize that 100% change is not realistic for any type of therapy.

Nearly all of the patients were happy they went through the therapy and viewed it as a success.


Where is the data to show that the subjects had been homosexual, (sexually attracted to members of the same sex), for years if not decades and no longer had sexual attraction to members of the same sex? Perhaps they could control those urges to stop them from engaging in sexual activity with members of the same sex, but where is the data to show they just no longer had any sexual feelings towards members of the same sex?

As SW pointed out, even Spitzer didn't seem to know:

Spitzer went by their own statements Spitzer's survey (http://www.ojc.de/dijg/pdf/bulletin_2_2001_spitzer_en.pdf) p2.

The basic idea is simple. Study the self-reported experiences that claim to have acheived a change from homosexual to heterosexual attraction that has lasted at least 5 years.



SL:
"Are the participants’ self-reports of change, by-and large, credible or are they biased because of self-deception, exaggeration, or even lying?"

Spiter, p4

Three quarters of the men and half the women in the study were heterosexually married.

Spitzer, p5

Indeed, the primary motivation for participating in the study for almost all the subjects was their interest in providing evidence from their own experience that homosexuality can be changed and offer hope to others.

A liberal's worst nightmare -- it's called hope. :eek:

“ Hypothesis: once homosexual, never heterosexual. ”

You yourself knows this is false. There are many teenagers that go through contradicting feelings during and after times of puberty.

Don't preach to me what I already know, tell your liberal brethren.

You're reaching in the hope that it will delay your inevitable failure. However, I will agree for now and say that unfortunately such data was not provided. How did Spitzer determine who was or wasn't actually really homosexual?

Actually he used a modified version of the Kinsey scale, as previously noted. As I said before, without a consistent, absolute definition of the state of nature, it's impossible to construct a bullet-proof scientific conclusion. In my experince in engineering, a lack of consistent definitions results in circular arguments and ambiguous, incongruous conclusions. As they say, garbage in garbage out. A definition is an input.


SW said:
"What!? 60!? So his cut-off for "gay" is someone who thinks they're attracted to the same sex more often than not? Where is the control for the anxiety driven, depressed man or woman that is simply scared of their androgenous thoughts and occasional curiosity about the same sex? Why didn't Spitzer study convergents who were completely homosexual?"

Some of them were. The most remarkable transformations were among the lesbians.

SL :
It seems anyone would do that stated they had at some time looked upon a member of the same sex with sexual attraction. As you might be aware by now, that includes a lot of teenagers, (current statistics suggest 60%). It seems he has picked a majority that confess to being just over half gay. What is half gay anyway?

Well you said yourself that any percentage of same sex attraction deemd one a homosexual. Is there such a thing as half-gay?

SL:
I'm sorry, you take a bunch of "half gays" and then when these people claim they're not so "half" anymore you call it a success? Please.

Please what -- read the report? Here's what it says:

How often were the subjects able to achieve good heterosexual functioning?
WE defined this as requiring: last year in a loving heterosexual relationship. Satisfaction from the emotional relationship with their partner, at least 7+ (1-10 scale where 10 is as good as it can be and 1 is as bad as it can be). Heterosexual sex at least monthly. Physical satisfaction from heterosexual sex at least 7+ (the same 1-10 scale). Never or rarely (<20%) think of same sex during heterosexual sex. This was the case for 66% of the males and 44% of the females.

Good heterosexual functioning in 33 males who before change efforts were extreme on the homosexual indicators -- had no opposite sex attraction in teens year, never had heterosexual sex in their life, no heterosexual mastabotory fantasies, 95+ on the modified Kensey scale. In these 33 males, good heterosexual functioning was acheived by 67% of these subjects, much to our surprise.

SL:

Perhaps not the homosexual community, but the bunch of half gays that Spitzer decided to 'test'.

Except for the 33 I just pointed out in Spitzer's report. You obviously haven't even looked at it because it crushes your liberal walls of willful ignorance and self-fulfilling bliss.

SW said:

The real topic of this thread is Why does Woody Hate gays?

Those are your words not mine.

Actually I was thinking of this title:

Why does SkinWalker hate ex-gays and wish they didn't exist?

Why does he hate their happiness? With a puke-bag liberal around who needs a devil? Many of them are in liberal journalism. Buy their newspaper with a barf-bag:

http://www.mamud.com/airsicknessbags/images/mscherer_small.gif

With regard to his inclusion of "prophet yahweh," this is his major flaw: Woody is willing to accept anyone's testimony that supports his conclusion without regard to their credibility or genuineness.

What are you talking about? Yahweh Smaweh. Your favorite red herring is gone. Find another pacifier.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE in the Spitzer study that shows these individuals actually change their orientation.

Pure Bullshit.

Sptizer, himself, reveals that 75% of his "subjects" were referred by religious cult organizations (p. 406) and their data was self-reported! In other words, the study was biased from the start!

So what do you propose, a lie detector test? Religious cult organizations have the power you don't have, and the ex-gays made their own choice about changing.

Spitzer began with noble intentions, but ended up with a worthless study after all!

Not the kind of results you wanted to see anyway.

First you'd have to demonstrate that "ex-gays" exist. There is no empirical evidence to support this. The only thing Spitzer shows is that a sample of people, 75% of which is comprised of individuals referred by religious cults looking for validation of their claims, can at least pretend to be heterosexual to avoid homophobic attitudes of their social groups and families.

Another major fallacy that Woody employs is the association of "liberals" with that with which he disagrees. This fallacy is a multi-leveled non sequitur that begins with the belief that being "liberal" or "conservative" are somehow bad or wrong (I realize that Woody would probably never identify the label of "conservative" as "bad" or "wrong," but there are those that would, which is why I include it as an example of this fallacy); second, the fallacy includes the notion that because someone disagrees with his views (which he undoubtedly considers to be conservative) that they must, therefore, be "liberal;" also fallacious, is the pretense that being aligned with the conservative positions of the so-called religious right implies that he cannot be wrong; finally, this fallacy concludes with the idea that use of a perceived derisive term somehow validates his arguments, lending credibility to his implied "conservatism."

Woody's premise and intent throughout this thread has been one of deception and bigotry, as I demonstrated in an earlier thread, but some good has come from it.

We have a good exercise in cri